US court asked to uphold ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy

AP, SAN FRANCISCO

The administration of US President Barack Obama may have concluded that laws targeting gay Americans are presumably unconstitutional, but it still asked a federal appeals court on Friday to refrain for now from striking down the ban on gays serving openly in the military, court documents state.

Justice Department lawyers asked the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to give the Pentagon time to train troops and take other steps Congress outlined in December, when it cleared the way for the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to be repealed.

The request was made in the government’s opening brief challenging a Southern California trial judge who in September declared the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy unconstitutional.

‘DIFFERENT POSTURE’

“This case is thus now in a different posture,” Assistant Attorney General Tony West wrote for the administration. “That statute is now undergoing a repeal process subject to a more recent law duly enacted by Congress and signed by the President.”

The relevant question now before the 9th Circuit, West maintained, is not whether “don’t ask, don’t tell” is unconstitutional, but whether it was unconstitutional for Congress to leave the policy in effect while the Pentagon works toward its repeal.

The brief was submitted in a case filed six years ago by Lob Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group that argued that forcing gay service members to keep their sexual orientations secret if they did not want to be discharged violated their First Amendment rights, among others.

Gay rights and conservative activists had been eager to see what the Department of Justice, which faced a Friday deadline for filing its brief, would say just two days after Attorney General Eric Holder announced the government would no longer defend the 1996 federal law that prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages.

Holder said the decision stemmed from Obama and his conclusions that any law that treats gay people differently is unconstitutional unless it serves a compelling governmental interest.

West did not reference the administration’s new position anywhere in his 56-page filing, instead arguing that Phillips had erred, largely on procedural grounds.

He also suggested that laws involving the military fall into a different category from those affecting civilians.

This story has been viewed 1185 times.

Comments will be moderated. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned.